science

Data.

I'm sure you could fit a few dollars in loose change in there to.

Sounds like utter bullshit to be honest with you.

At the bottom of that article you linked:
"Research data for this article Data not available / No data was used for the research described in the article"

If I read the cited sources and they turn out to be a bunch of untested hypotheses based on poorly conducted studies… I'll be mad.

Just skimming through it makes a bad first impression.

…I'm not even trying to be derisive. I'm just really angry at how much "there's a study" has become "there's proof". And I shouldn't even be mad because communicating that difference should be the authors' job.

If you value your time, don't read any further because I'm just going to vent a little:

So I lack any formal education (apart from ficking school). The best thing I can say about myself is that I can hold and mostly understand a conversation with people who are actually educated in their field.

But some studies are bad. Like bad-bad. So bad that I think, most people who can read should be able to recognize their flaws if they actually read them.

For example:

I read a study a while back about genetic (as opposed to learned) prepositions of monkeys in relation to their biological sex and preference for toys.

The methodology was bad, but here's the shittiest part imo: At the end of the study, the researchers found that of the 130 or so monkeys, only about half showed any preference for any kind toy. So the researchers excluded the unbiased monkeys from the test. Of the remaining monkeys, still only the males showed any preference for the "male" toys. So the females were also excluded. In the end, only 30 monkeys actually counted, because they showed the hypothesized difference in their preferences. And even those only showed a delta of 10-30% in the time they spent with the toys.

The study should have concluded that most monkeys don't give a shit if a toy has wheels (like a shopping cart, which apparently makes it a "male" toy) or if it's soft, like a plush (which is "female" because boys would never touch a plushy, of course).

Instead, they found that their hypothesis turned out to be correct, after disregarding anything that invalidated their hypothesis.

Where did I get this study from? From social media, of course. Where a bunch of meat heads "proved" that all women genetically want to be tradwives and trans people don't exist or some shit.

Fuck everything about this.

Except he hasn't electrocuted a live elephant to make a point. Yet.

Okay but what you're saying is if I hired a good enough marksman to shoot the cancer out of my body without killing me then that's a good thing right?

I mean, that's basically what we do with gamma radiation and chemotherapy, just a little bit more ballistic, right?

Identifier of ownership

To be fair, I think anyone going through something as traumatic as basically being put into stasis and having their heart cut out and and then having one reattached would change a bit simply because of the process.

I mean, you don't keep stepping on Lego bricks barefoot after you've done so, and we expect people who have had a heart ripped out and then another one reinserted to act the same?...

Many stories like this from fecal exchanges (trans-poo-sions)